posted on December 10, 2006 05:45:58 PM new
The neocons are on their way out of power and influence and they know it. That is why they are now getting so vile and nasty.
They are not really stupid people, give them credit where credit it due. For a number of years they were able to manipulate Americans fears and build on them. 9/11 was the perfect platform for them to stand on and begin demolishing real civil liberties and they did so with some degree of success.
Where they failed was their inability to see that their reign of power was not limitless nor timeless. Perhaps their biggest blunder was choosing a total idiot like George W Bush to be their figurehead. The man is an imbecile and it will be to the Democrats advantage that he is arrogant and will remain so.
Everyone knows that he will "stay the course" and continue down the same path that he has been on for years. His false pride won't allow anything else and his stupidity will fuel it. The new Democratic Congress will pass needed legislation and he will veto it and probably enough Republican members will vote to sustain his veto to make it a fact. GOOD, because all of that will be recalled in the 2008 election campaign cycle. It will insure much larger Democrat victories in Congress and the election of a Democrat to the White House.
The neocons know their influence and clout is a thing of the past and they hate it. What do they have to look forward to, a thorough dismantling of what they have accomplished and the building of a society that they will deplore. Doesn't do much to make for "Happy Holidays" for them, does it?
posted on December 10, 2006 06:33:36 PM new
While losing both house is a hard thing to take....I believe good lessons will be learned by the voters.
They didn't really vote FOR the dems....and certainly NOT for their still unknown platforms ...they just wanted change. And so now they've given the opportunity to the dems to do just that.
Problem for the dems is they have NO plan. Especially no agreement on their promise to 'pull out of Iraq'. LOL That's one thing the voters will learn....they can't/didn't live up to their BIG promises.
Then we have the spending issue. Okay..the dems promised all sorts of new things they were going to do for the 'people'. lol Yea, like RAISE THEIR TAXES. SPEND MORE money.....lol
By the time of the next election cycle...the voters will be convinced that the dems never did 'deliver' on their promises...and decide to put both houses BACK into the hands of American's who WILL defend this nation against our enemies....not fight for our enemies 'right's.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on December 10, 2006 06:37:26 PM new
All the voters will need to see is Dubya's big old RED VETO STAMP on legislation to benefit AMERICANS here in AMERICA and that will do it all right. LOL LOL LOL
posted on December 10, 2006 07:05:39 PM newProblem for the dems is they have NO plan. Especially no agreement on their promise to 'pull out of Iraq'. LOL
Wow, nothing like passing on the blame and then laughing while more people get killed. Bush and his boys started the war with NO plan which has escalated into one that's very difficult to resolve because they wouldn't listen to any advice given to them over several years. The 'Dems' have NO plan? Does anyone? Everyone knows that Bush sure doesn't.
posted on December 10, 2006 07:11:49 PM new
Democrats didn't promise to pull out of Iraq. You're imagining things again. There are meds for this......
____________________________________________
May 1, 2003, America brings "democracy" to Iraq. November 7, 2006, Iraq brings democracy to America.
posted on December 10, 2006 07:16:07 PM new
Sure they did, profe. Better re-read what pelosi AND murtha were calling for.
Might not describe that as a 'promise'...lol...but that's the position the radical left supported/supports....is still hoping for.
========
Again, justsimpleme - I think you assume too many things.
From what I've read a lot of the newly elected DEMS are more conservative than some of the moderate/liberal republicans they REPLACED.
I think they're going to be agreeing MORE with the pro-American policy side...that you think they are.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on December 10, 2006 07:22:12 PM newMight not describe that as a 'promise'...lol
Then why did you?
____________________________________________
May 1, 2003, America brings "democracy" to Iraq. November 7, 2006, Iraq brings democracy to America.
posted on December 10, 2006 07:23:21 PM new
In fact, you called them "BIG promises".
____________________________________________
May 1, 2003, America brings "democracy" to Iraq. November 7, 2006, Iraq brings democracy to America.
posted on December 10, 2006 07:23:46 PM new
Linda said;
"From what I've read a lot of the newly elected DEMS are more conservative than some of the moderate/liberal republicans they REPLACED.
I think they're going to be agreeing MORE with the pro-American policy side...that you think they are."
You have any specifics for that statement, like who?
As we have discussed before, all that has to happen is for FUNDING to be cut. That can be accomplished simply by NOT APPROPRIATING current levels and REDIRECTING where the money can be spent. You need to remember who will make up the MAJORITY of both the US House Armed Services Committee and the US Senate Armed Services Committee and who will chair them. It certainly WILL NOT be new members and you know it. LOL
posted on December 10, 2006 07:25:08 PM new
posted on December 10, 2006 06:33:36 PM by LindaK
Problem for the dems is they have NO plan. Especially no agreement on their promise to 'pull out of Iraq'. LOL That's one thing the voters will learn....they can't/didn't live up to their BIG promises.
____________________________________________
May 1, 2003, America brings "democracy" to Iraq. November 7, 2006, Iraq brings democracy to America.
posted on December 10, 2006 07:31:35 PM new
profe, wrap yourselves around semantics if you wish,
you know darn good and well there has LONG been a BIG division in the dem party...the radical - pull out NOW group - pelosi murtha kerry, etc. etec and those dems who believe we can't pull out UNTIL Iraq can defend itself.
That division in the dem party hasn't changed one bit.
And I think most HONEST people KNOW...a HUGE reason the dems got elected was to withdraw our troops from Iraq.
Call it whatever you wish....they pretended to offer a CHANGE rather than 'staying the course'.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on December 10, 2006 07:43:53 PM new
here you go, profe...straight from the lead donkey's mouth....quoted and all.
Pelosi endorses Murtha's pullout call
By Brian DeBose
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
December 1, 2005
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California said yesterday she now agrees with Rep. John P. Murtha's call to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq immediately, adding that a majority of House Democrats also agree.
"I'm endorsing what Mr. Murtha is saying, which is that the status quo is not working and that we need to have a plan that makes us safer, our military stronger, and makes Iraq more stable," she said.
"I believe that a majority of our caucus clearly supports Mr. Murtha," she added.
=======
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Dec 10, 2006 08:06 PM ]
posted on December 10, 2006 07:46:49 PM new
Linda said;
"Pelosi endorses Murtha's pullout call
By Brian DeBose
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
December 1, 2005
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California said yesterday she now agrees with Rep. John P. Murtha's call to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq immediately, adding that a majority of House Democrats also agree."
I have been saying the exact same thing, the key word is BEGIN and with cutting appropriations and directing PRECISELY where appropriated funds can be spent, that is an inevitable reality.
But that is FAR SHORT of an IMMEDIATE AND COMPLETE WITHDRAWAL.
posted on December 10, 2006 07:50:00 PM newprofe, wrap yourselves around semantics if you wish
There's only one of me here. Those other voices you're hearing aren't me. Really.
And I think most HONEST people KNOW...a HUGE reason the dems got elected was to withdraw our troops from Iraq.
What pomposity to presume to know why the majority of voters voted the way they did. Do you talk to god before or after Mr. Bush? Is there a pecking order in who gets to know the inner workings of peoples' minds and motivations or do you two get a conference call with the creator of heaven and earth? Does anyone else get in on the call, maybe Pat Robertson or that homo preacher in Colorado?
Lots of Democrats have joined together to urge the President to begin redeploying troops and shifting the focus in Iraq. If that to you means "promising" a pullout, you're the one wrapping yourself in semantics, not me.
____________________________________________
May 1, 2003, America brings "democracy" to Iraq. November 7, 2006, Iraq brings democracy to America.
posted on December 10, 2006 07:50:03 PM new
justsimpleme
lol...yes, from right winged political pundits that I don't think you'd ever believe anything that comes out of their mouths.
But they appear to me to have VAST knowledge of how many of the newly elected dems have voted in the past.....knowledge of their personal statements about their own positions in regards to the war in Iraq.
They were sharing this saying that things might not be as bad as they looked after the election...and that was their reason why.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on December 10, 2006 07:54:35 PM new
justsimpleme
and what I've been saying is that the DEMS don't have the GUTS to withhold funding the wars. Period.
They're GUTLESS.
Not that long ago when all they were talking about was withdrawing from Iraq.....obviously to win the voters over to their side.....the President FORCED a vote...so that their position would be CLEAR to all the voters.
Guess what? They voted to NOT 'do' immediate withdrawal.
And I'm betting, since a few dems have said they would NEVER vote to stop funding our troops.....that it's just NOT going to happen.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on December 10, 2006 08:07:47 PM new
Well Linda, I can not really address unnamed pundits and their interpretations of how newly elected members of Congress will or will not vote. That is pure conjecture anyway.
On the funding issue, I will take your bet. Again, AFFIRMATIVE action is not required, simply withholding ASSENT is more than enough. When push comes to shove, COMPROMISE will be the order of the day WITHIN THE MAJORITY, that being the cvase, CURRENT LEVELS OF FUNDING WILL NOT BE MAINTAINED and we both know it.
It was EASY for Bush to "force" a vote, when his party CONTROLLED both chambers, his party now will control NEITHER. His days of "demanding" anything are long gone. If he hopes to get ANYTHING, he will put a smile on his face, use his best manners and be cordial and get ready to eat LARGE PORTIONS OF CROW PIE.
posted on December 10, 2006 08:25:02 PM new
I'm not clear on what you're saying you BELIEVE will happen with the funding issue.
The President requests necesary funds for the wars from the Congress.
It appears to me you're saying they WON'T give our troops the funding they need?
lol lol lol
I don't think any politican is stupid enough to do that to our troops and EVER expect to be re-elected.
Leaving our troops there, unfunded OR even partially funded...will look REAL bad to the voters. Maybe enough to start talking bad about how the dems showed their true colors...and they have NEVER been concerned about our troops having what they need. It was only lip service, once again.
Nope....they're going to have to find the GUTS to admit defeat for America and bring the troops home.....or continue funding them UNTIL such time they ARE brought home.
You're living in a fantasy world.
Have you ever served in any branch of our military????
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on December 10, 2006 08:29:25 PM new
I want to be sure I have what you're predicting straight.
You're saying that all those dems who voted TO GO TO WAR.....then when things got tough...weren't supporting the war....VOTED to NOT do an immediate withdrawal...but now they'll vote differently just because their party won control of the houses?
How do you figure that?
Seems to be IF they're really holding to their convictions....they'd hold them no matter which party had the power. No????
Or are you suggesting they're all like kerry....flip-flopping all over the place at any given time? lol lol
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Let me clarify for you, I NEVER said LEAVE our troops in Iraq unfunded, I said REDUCE FUNDING and YES, I think Congress will MANDATE the BEGINNING OF TROOP WITHDRAWAL very quickly and will set NUMBER QUOTAS that have to be met. That is ENTIRELY different that a FULL SCALE IMMEDIATE withdrawal OR MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO.
IF you think the new Democrat lead Congress is going to allow Bush to continue his Iraq adventure full speed ahead, YOU ARE LIVING IN THE FANTASY WORLD. LOL LOL
The MAJORITY of VOTING AMERICANS do NOT support SUSTAINING current levels of US Military involvement in Iraq, the election results clearly show that.
I think the new Democrat led Congress most assuredly WILL RESPOND to that fact, after all, IT GOT THEM ELECTED. lol
posted on December 10, 2006 08:36:19 PM new
Ahhhh....reduced funding.....lol lol
what shall they take away from our troops? bullets? food? equipment? protective devices? armored vehicles?
leaving them unABLE to do their job safely and successfully.
No surprise there. tsk tsk tsk
and here not that long ago the dems were screaming bloody murder about the troops not have the proper chest protectors.
so their safety really ISN'T an issue for you who don't support our troops, huh?
I see much more clearly now.
An anti-troop position....cut their ability to safely do their jobs. tsk tsk tsk
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on December 10, 2006 08:47:49 PM new
Oh GAWD! Here she goes with the ...
""Have you ever served in any branch of our military????"""
Means she's losing another argument.
You see, JustSimpleMe, linduh is a big tough MARINE MOM who knows EVERYTHING about the military because her son serves in the Marines in a dangerous post as a journalist in HAWAII !
Makes her an expert on the military....
BTW, linduh, the bush cabal started the war and sent our troops in with INADEQUATE FUNDING!!!!
And don't start saying others don't support the troops or I will once again remind everyone of how you insulted and demeaned them......
posted on December 10, 2006 08:51:38 PM new
No Linda, I am feel quite certain they will be very safe when they are redeployed BACK to the United States of America and I feel certain Congress will see to it that ALL FUNDS NECESSARY to achieve that goal are made available on an expedient basis.
posted on December 10, 2006 08:55:26 PM new
Let's have a simple contest. We could have juststupidme predict a bunch of things the dems will do in the next year with their SIMPLE majority.
posted on December 10, 2006 09:01:10 PM new
sounds like a plan to me.
lol lol lol
=====================
And so far I have NOT read any quotes nor statements from this President backing away from his constant position...that we would STAY until the job is done.
I don't expect he'll go along with starting to withdraw. nope...just don't see that happening as long as HE is C-I-C lol
...they just wanted change. And so now they've given the opportunity to the dems to do just that.
It certainly WILL NOT be new members and you know it. LOL